Jump to content

Iraq and the Bush Administration


Recommended Posts

Hi, I'm a new member here and this is my first post.

I'm a Veteran and a Patriot.

I support the war in Afghanistan, but I am very much against the war in Iraq. Or at least the reasons we were given, the way it was executed and the timing.

My thoughts on the war in Iraq...

Americans and the world have been given different reasons for the war with Iraq, as the Bush Administration's unsubstantiated invasion and occupation has become more and more confusing.

Iraq, ties to 9/11.

Iraq, no ties to 9/11.

Iraq, ties to al Qaeda.

Iraq, no ties to al Qaeda.

Iraq, threat to USA.

Iraq, no threat to USA.

Iraq, chemical bunkers.

Iraq, no chemical bunkers.

Iraq, CWMD.

Iraq, no CWMD.

Iraq, mushrooms clouds.

Iraq, no mushroom clouds.

Iraq, becoming an imminent threat,

Iraq, not becoming an imminent threat.

Now, it’s a “liberation.”

Sure, we thought Saddam Hussein possessed these CWMD. Almost everybody did. We can't fault Bush for believing it too. Hell, we helped him obtain them, to use on the Iranians. How dare he use them on the Kurds! But few thought Saddam was actually a threat to America. It was President Bush and his Administration that made him appear to be more of a threat than he was... "before he (Hussein) becomes an imminent threat", "mushroom clouds", "supporting terrorists", "shopping for uranium in Niger", etc., etc.

We’ve had more than 1,700 American troops killed in Iraq.

More than 13,500 injured. Many losing arms, legs, and their sight!

These numbers climb daily.

If the Bush Administration is going to now say that the war in Iraq is about "liberation", wouldn't that be the "flip-flop" of the century? I mean, this is what George Bush said when applying to the American people for the job of Commander in Chief:

"If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world and nation building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road, and I'm going to prevent that.... ....I don't want to be the world's policeman, I want to be the world's peacemaker."

George W. Bush - Gore/Bush Presidential Debate

October 3, 2000

Sure, then came 9/11. But, what’s Iraq really got to do with that?

Rightwing America wants to say, “If it was up to the Democrats, Saddam Hussein would still be in power.” That may or may not be true. But given the choice, wouldn't it have been better for Americans and Europeans, if Osama bin Laden and his entourage had been captured instead?

When President Bush first took office in 2001, he was warned about Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, by the Clinton Administration. But, Bush had Condoleezza Rice (an expert on the Soviet Union) as his National Security Advisor. Rice had NEVER even heard of al Qaeda before. George Bush was stuck in the 80s, just look at his people, Cheney... Powell (now gone)... Rice... Rumsfeld... Wolfowitz (the list goes on). These are daddy's people. Wasn't it within the first year as President that Bush wanted to renege on the Soviet Missile Treaty? While this was going on, al Qaeda was planning 9/11 and not only did Bush have Clinton's warnings about bin Laden, he ALSO had the infamous "memo." It took 9/11 for him to wake up and understand just what it was the Clinton Administration was talking about.

And, oh how Bush had hoped it was Iraq that had attacked us.

Do you remember:

Vice President Dick Cheney and the "pretty well confirmed" story about a meeting in Prague between Iraqi officials and al Qaeda operatives?

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld when asked about Iraq’s chemical weapons of mass destruction said, “we know where they are.”

Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz said, "But let me be clear: when it comes to reconstruction, before we turn to the American taxpayers, we will turn first to the resources of the Iraqi government itself and the international community. That is why the President last week seized frozen Iraqi assets in the United States—so that they can be put to use to rebuild the country."

President Bush said, after 9/11, "I can hear you, the rest of the world hears you and the people that knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon!"

VP Cheney said, “We’ll be greeted as liberators.”

Instead:

We're in Iraq liberating Iraqis with American lives and blood, and with the American taxpayer's money. That money belongs here at home bettering our Nation, NOT Iraq's. This is money that could be better spent fighting the REAL war on terror! Iraq has one of the world's largest oil reserves. They should pay for their own building and rebuilding. Why are we financing this “liberation”?

I think it's a travesty!

I have no problem with ousting Saddam Hussein. It’s the way the Bush Admin has done it (and the timing) that bothers. It was timed and executed poorly, at best.

The Bush Administration’s exaggerated allegations only made the building of a coalition harder to do. The United Nations isn’t going to invade anybody without solid evidence. That’s something the Bush Administration failed to produce.

Perhaps had we sent the UN in searching for mass graves and torture chambers the outcome would have been different.

After finding such real evidence, such as the mass graves and torture chambers, if Russia, France or Germany didn't want to participate, then fine... Go ahead without them. But, who can really blame them today for not joining us, when it turns out Bush was all wrong with his allegations?

However, if we're going to go ahead without a real coalition, there still has to be an exit plan and our troops will have to be FULLY equipped. And now I ask... What was the hurry, that we couldn't equip our troops properly, before attacking?

The luxury of a "preemptive" strike is that you are going in on your terms, when you're prepared, when the weather favors you best. Bush rushed in with our troops ill-prepared and with no plan to win the peace. Then he has the gall to blame Senator Kerry for the lack of body armor, because he voted against the $87 billion, due to the funds in it going to Halliburton. President Bush fails to mention how he himself threatened to veto that Bill had they revised it in any way, like taking funds from Halliburton. President Bush shouldn't have sent our troops into a war with Iraq, without the proper body armor, in the first place.

Then to invade during a sandstorm that our troops weren’t equipped for. Their vehicles and weapons failing them. Some units became lost, some were killed and others captured. It was a quagmire from the get go! And it’s this President’s fault!

Why don't our troops deserve the best preparation available to them? Where was Saddam Hussein going? Why couldn't the Bush Administration be a little more patient and prudent? Again, I ask… What was the hurry? We'd waited 12 years. What's with another few months or a year or so?

Yes, it’s better to fight them over there than here on our streets. We were already at war with terror in Afghanistan - fighting terrorists "over there", when President Bush decided to start a war with Iraq. Now we’re bogged down in Iraq and it’s hampering our efforts with the war on Terror.

Sure, it’s better to “fight them over there”, but it’s also very important we fight them harder here at home too. We need Federal Agents on all domestic transportation. We need better nuclear plant security. We need tighter borders. We must invest more in port security. These are some of the ways we can fight terror at home. Forget about wrapping your home in plastic sheathing and duct tape. Can you believe our Government REALLY suggested that, in the case of a chemical attack?

President Bush has failed us. He’s been sidetracked at one of the worst times in American history. He’s lost his focus on those that attacked on us September 11, 2001.

al Qaeda now continues to grow from within the lands of their enemies. They are sprouting up around the world in new cells ready, willing, and able to do any dirty needs for Osama bin Laden.

And us? We're bogged down in a quagmire called Iraq!

God Bless Our Troops!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 70
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

To Ironside

Hello Ironside. I'm new here too so I would like to say hello to you and to others in the forum.

I read your post first. What you write about Condie RIce on the Soviet Union is so true. When Bush came into office and appointed her, she was mainly concerned about the Russians in spite of Clinton's warnings. How amazing is that!

I miss the Clinton years when all we had to worry about was Monica Lewinsky. Now here we are with Bush, an overly medicated president, on anti-depressants and sleeping pills, who seems to be constantly trying to remember things because obviously these meds are affecting his memory and his brain (he's so aggressive).

The tragedy in all of this is the loss of young lives, our future. Teenage soldiers losing their lives in Iraq and muslims dying by the thousands.

The book

Future Tense by Gwynne Dyer

is what made me understand what this war is all about and how it has and will become an opportunity beyond Bin Laden's highest expectations.

The book was written before the 2004 US election and in an interview, Gwynne Dyer had actually predicted the bombings of buses and the like as well as the rising anger in the Muslim world which is what Bin Laden had hoped for and Bush provided by his invasion of Iraq.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The world is full of libertarians who have 20/20 vision looking back. I'm in Canada and have an average at best understanding of politics and been called a red neck anti gay conservative(recently). The lines between conservative and liberal seem to be cast in stone in the USA but quite a lot more undefined with right, left and shades of grey in between in Canada.

I sometimes feel the way you guys do, while other times am strongly for the Bush strategy. It's just too easy to sit back and criticize what has happened. I personally think the events since 911 have something more to do with stimulating the American economy than promoting freedom. America has always stuck together in the face of adversity, Hitler, then the cold war, etc. However, when there's no 'enemy', I think the Americans get bored, funding for the military goes down, the country loses it's 'edge' and 'readiness'. After all, how can you be a superpower without demonstrating it every now and then.

I think every president should be critiqued after his tenure and if it's deemed that he did more bad than good, in the klink with him. Maybe the decisions would be different and more cautious then.

I posted an article here a couple of days back illustrating this point.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=3630

By the way, welcome to the forum Ironside, I'm new here too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The book was written before the 2004 US election and in an interview, Gwynne Dyer had actually predicted the bombings of buses and the like as well as the rising anger in the Muslim world which is what Bin Laden had hoped for and Bush provided by his invasion of Iraq.
He also predicted a military alliance between India and the US against China.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The book was written before the 2004 US election and in an interview, Gwynne Dyer had actually predicted the bombings of buses and the like as well as the rising anger in the Muslim world which is what Bin Laden had hoped for and Bush provided by his invasion of Iraq.
He also predicted a military alliance between India and the US against China.

US-India-China: Giants at Play

Washington is in the throes of an Indian summer. As the mercury rises, so does the buzz surrounding Manmohan Singh’s recent trip to Washington. Dr Singh returns home with an assurance of US friendship and President Bush’s personal commitment to expand civil nuclear cooperation with India at the expense of a strained international non-proliferation system.

A major driver in the administration’s radical overtures to New Delhi has been China. India’s burgeoning economy, democratic ideals, and second largest standing army in the world have caught the Bush administration’s eye as it looks to preserve US preeminence in Asia by balancing China with India. This ambition partly underpins the US’s decision to make India a ‘‘major world power.’’

Gwynne Dyer: prophet? :blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Osama was quoted as saying that the USA would be led by the nose into war after war until they have bled their economy dry on military expenditures.

When you look at the incredible rise in the American deficit since this war began, it makes me think that Osama and his merry band of hoodlums are patting each other on the back in a congratulatory fashion because things seem to being going according to their plan.

Now, it looks like the same plan is being implemented against Great Britain.

A few more attacks and the Brits will be riled up and ready to commit more troops and bucks.

As a personal prediction, I believe that as soon as it starts looking like the USA is going to pull out of Iraq, there'll be another major attack on American soil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a personal prediction, I believe that as soon as it starts looking like the USA is going to pull out of Iraq, there'll be another major attack on American soil.

Personal prediction: the US pull out from Iraq will be so gradual that Al-Qaeda won't notice it. For all we know it may have already begun.

The 911 attack was a fluke and a one-off. No one could have predicted that burning jet fuel would weaken the WTC towers' structural integrity to the point of collapse. And you'll never get another planeload of Americans to sit passively while some guy threatens a stewardess with a boxcutter. That strategy was obsolete before the fourth plane crashed in Pennsylvania.

If the terrorists are able pull off another major attack on US soil it will have to be something completely different. One horrifying concept making its rounds in the right wing blogs is that the terrorists have a variety of different nukes already smuggled into major US cities, some of which were already in put in place by the RUssians during the Cold War. I happen to think this theory is dubious at best, but that' the type of scenario we're looking at for the next major attack, if there is one.

As an added note, I'd like to point out that if some sort of major attack occurs, and you blame it on the American pull out, you'll be competing in a left-wing market place flooded with theories about why it's America's own fault, including that the Americans didn't pull out fast enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Osama was quoted as saying that the USA would be led by the nose into war after war until they have bled their economy dry on military expenditures.

When you look at the incredible rise in the American deficit since this war began, it makes me think that Osama and his merry band of hoodlums are patting each other on the back in a congratulatory fashion because things seem to being going according to their plan.

Now, it looks like the same plan is being implemented against Great Britain.

A few more attacks and the Brits will be riled up and ready to commit more troops and bucks.

As a personal prediction, I believe that as soon as it starts looking like the USA is going to pull out of Iraq, there'll be another major attack on American soil.

Well said! I think you're EXACTLY correct!

Bush is actually playing right into the hands of al Qaeda, with his war in Iraq.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can we say QUAGMIRE now?

This ties into my "Familiar Headlines" thread perfectly.

Familiar Headlines

Germans Declare Americans Hatred

U.S. Investigators Discover Mounting Bitterness Over Our Occupational Practices

By Kathleen McLaughlin, The New York Times

December 3, 1945

Bitter resentment and deep disappointement was voiced over the American's first six months of the occupation.

Loss of Victory in Germany Through U.S. Policy Feared

By John H. Crider, The New York Times

November 18, 1945

Grave concern was expressed today by informed officials that the United States might soon lose the fruits of victory in Germany through the failure to prepare adequately for carrying out its long-term commitments under the Potsdam Declaration.

Germans Reveal Hatred of Americans

By Drew Middleton, The New York Times

October 31, 1945

The German attitude twoard the American occupation forces has swung from apathy and surface friendliness to active dislike.

According to a military government official, this is the finding expression in the organization throghout the zone and in a rapid increase in the number of attacks on American soldiers.  There were more such attacks in the first week of October than in the preceding five months of the occupation, this source declared.

American's Clashes With Germans Grow

October 10, 1946

Reich Girls Want Return of Nazism

By Drew Middleton

October 22, 1945

Reports on the survey revealed that girls up to 18 years of age and women in their early twenties yearned for "a strong new Fuehrer," opposed denazification, and were ready to excuse Hitler as a good man with "bad advisors".

It's just the same doom and gloom recycled by the same type of people today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest eureka

Can you please tell me what message your headlines are supposed to convey? They all seem to refer to actual situations of the times and I wonder just what you think the implications for those are.

If you are trying to draw some kind of parallel, then you should explain it since there is a world of difference between then and now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personal prediction: the US pull out from Iraq will be so gradual that Al-Qaeda won't notice it. For all we know it may have already begun.

You may be right, but I have doubts. The incredible involvement of the media puts everything going on over there under a microscope. I also believe Bush would use the pull-out as another opportunity to trumpet his "success", so I think we'd hear about it.

The 911 attack was a fluke and a one-off. No one could have predicted that burning jet fuel would weaken the WTC towers' structural integrity to the point of collapse. And you'll never get another planeload of Americans to sit passively while some guy threatens a stewardess with a boxcutter. That strategy was obsolete before the fourth plane crashed in Pennsylvania.

I mentioned the possibility of another attack. It would be stupid to expect it to take the same form as 9/11, and I never said or implied that it would do so. So I guess we agree here.

If the terrorists are able pull off another major attack on US soil it will have to be something completely different. One horrifying concept making its rounds in the right wing blogs is that the terrorists have a variety of different nukes already smuggled into major US cities, some of which were already in put in place by the RUssians during the Cold War. I happen to think this theory is dubious at best, but that' the type of scenario we're looking at for the next major attack, if there is one. 

I agree this scenario is dubious, but there are many forms an attack could take. Conventional explosives being one of the most likely. But almost anything can be turned into a weapon. Consider a fuel-tanker transport truck driven at high speed into any heavily-populated area. Now picture about 20 of them doing the same thing simultaneously in different cities. Messy. And deadly.

As an added note, I'd like to point out that if some sort of major attack occurs, and you blame it on the American pull out, you'll be competing in a left-wing market place flooded with theories about why it's America's own fault, including that the Americans didn't pull out fast enough.

You seem to misinterpret my thoughts. I would not be blaming such an attack on a USA pull-out, but rather on Osama et al, and their attempts to manipulate the US administration via well-timed tactical strikes. According to his own words, Osama WANTS the USA to be involved in war, and wants them to STAY involved in war untl the country is bankrupt. That's a hell of a lot of war, but with Bush at the helm, well, connect the dots.

To clarify further, I do not blame 9/11 on the USA. The blame rests solely with those who organized and perpetrated the attack.

But it is entirely possible that the USA gave them the motive for the attack through the US policies regarding the ME in general, and involvement with Israel more in particular.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or, it could be that they really have held a grudge against us since Andalusia. Who can tell with these guys? Whenever they get a chance to vent their frustration on tape they throw in every grievance and slight that has ever occurred to them. And really, why should we care? People like to argue about "root causes" and trying to find a rational for the what the Islamic terrorists are doing, as if it could be boiled down to a Northern Ireland or Israeli situation of cause and effect. But the things the terrorists themselves have said on the matter are completely incoherent. I'm convinced that they're acting out of deep-seated, blind rage, and that no amount of compromise or good will will placate them. Fine. Pull out of Iraq. Give the "Palestinians" whatever they want. Liquidate the Serbs and Croats and turn the former Yugoslavia over to Albania entirely. Have the Russians withdraw from Chechnya. It won't make a difference, because those "causes" are only excuses for the one true cause: to eliminate our way of life and replace it with sharia and submission, and to kill as many hated infidels as they can in the process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear BHS,

The term 'Quagmire' and the comparisons to Vietnam re: Afghanistan and Iraq are not far off the mark, if one looks at the basic motivation. Ho Chi Minh said "we did not fight off the Japanese so the French could return, we want our independence". As it is with Afghanistan. (Note that the US reasoning to join the fight against was to prevent the so-called 'domino effect').

Now, again, they are fighting a protracted overseas battle, with superior weaponry against 'simple savages', to change the 'hearts and minds' of a foreign peoples. Not making much headway will only lead to the loss of support at home.

It won't make a difference, because those "causes" are only excuses for the one true cause: to eliminate our way of life and replace it with sharia and submission, and to kill as many hated infidels as they can in the process.
Not even Bin Laden has stated this. Perhaps you know his mind better than himself?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear BHS,

The term 'Quagmire' and the comparisons to Vietnam re: Afghanistan and Iraq are not far off the mark, if one looks at the basic motivation. Ho Chi Minh said "we did not fight off the Japanese so the French could return, we want our independence". As it is with Afghanistan. (Note that the US reasoning to join the fight against was to prevent the so-called 'domino effect').

Now, again, they are fighting a protracted overseas battle, with superior weaponry against 'simple savages', to change the 'hearts and minds' of a foreign peoples. Not making much headway will only lead to the loss of support at home.

* * *

Not even Bin Laden has stated this. Perhaps you know his mind better than himself?

I'm sure that in your mind, every war becomes another Vietnam. If that's how you choose to look at the situation, that's your prerogative. I hope you enjoy being bitter. Don't blame me for seeing choosing to focus on the positives.

I don't believe I was quoting anyone in particular, but illustrating the rhetoric common to anti-Western imams throughout the ME. It's interesting to me that the left has taken to identifying all Islamist terror with OBL personally, as if he were the one and only authority on the subject, and as if terrorism will suddenly cease if he's ever captured (assuming you can capture dust - I'm still not 100% convinced he didn't die in Tora Bora). Whatever gets you through the night, I guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear BHS,

I'm sure that in your mind, every war becomes another Vietnam.
There you go, mindreading again. The reference to Vietnam must also include, to be truthful about the matter, the US' reluctance to actually declare, and fight to win, a 'war'. The 'half-measures' that the US went into Vietnam with are the same ones today that they went into Iraq with. It is difficult to compare Iraq with Vietnam and WWII with any degree of fairness, but it can be done. There was a formal declaration of war in WWII, and there was a formal capitulation. Had the US declared war on Iraq, they could have had a capitulation document signed by someone (most likely Aziz), and then could have laid down the rules for the entire country. As it stands, the US is actually an illegal occupying force, with no real laws or protection for them, especially for the period where there was no Iraqi gov't. They could have de-mobbed the Iraqi National guard, and even forbade weapons if they were prudent enough. Instead, Bremner chose to send the Iraqi army home with their guns! ( Had Bremner been killed by one of the guys with one of these guns, he should have qualified for a Darwin Award) The US then could have 'legally' shot or hung anybody carrying arms in Iraq. These and other glaring mistakes that the US has made, and continue to make, support the use of the term 'quagmire', and it is one of their own devising.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It wasn't so much mind reading as making an experienced guess.

"Illegally occupying force" and a buck will get you a small coffee at Tim's, when the world body supposedly upholding the law ties itself in knots to do nothing about transgressions of said law.

For the sake of my sanity, I hereby declare that Iraq is officially a quagmire. The people such as yourself who've been arguing from the quagmire angle since before the intervention started, have long ago sucked all useful meaning from the word. This being the case, I don't feel that there's any harm in allowing you to use if freely to describe Iraq's liberation and democratization.

Oh, and say hi to Cheech and Chong for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sure that in your mind, every war becomes another Vietnam. If that's how you choose to look at the situation, that's your prerogative. I hope you enjoy being bitter. Don't blame me for seeing choosing to focus on the positives.

Neocon guru? Who knew?

For the sake of my sanity, I hereby declare that Iraq is officially a quagmire. The people such as yourself who've been arguing from the quagmire angle since before the intervention started, have long ago sucked all useful meaning from the word. This being the case, I don't feel that there's any harm in allowing you to use if freely to describe Iraq's liberation and democratization.

The funny thing about people who predicted a quagmire before the occupation began was how right they were proven. In fact, on just about every front, the anti-war crowd has been right and the war hawks/chickenhawks dead wrong. It's just too bad it's the Iraqi people who are paying the biggest price for the neocons' hubris and "positive thinking".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's easy to call any war a quagmire as war is dirty. It never goes as planned. Calling the Iraq war a quagmire and comparing it to Vietnem is simplistic and very shortsighted. There are arguments for every side of this debate and spin on every angle. Think it's a mess? You're right. Think some progress is happening? You're right too.

I'm not there and can't tell you what's happening. No one person who is actually there can tell you that either. We must have faith in whoever is leading the war that the reason was valid to go there. Who are all of us to second guess a national leader when we are not privy to the information he uses to base his decisions. I refrained from using GB's name because it could very well be a liberal democrat who digs this war down even more in the next few years.

If the USA gets a gutless president like Bill Clinton the next term around, the war will most likely get 10 times messier than it is now as he tries to do the 'politically correct' moves to get out of it. If the dems get in they'll probably appoint someone like Michael Moore as defence secretary.

The poop will be hitting the fan then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear crazymf,

There are arguments for every side of this debate and spin on every angle. Think it's a mess? You're right. Think some progress is happening? You're right too.
You are right. Well said.
If the USA gets a gutless president like Bill Clinton the next term around
Wrong. Clinton wasn't gutless, he tried to kill Bin Laden several times. Further, he didn't have an event like 9/11 (on US soil, which led the general US public to accept WAYYYY larger 'collateral damage') to justify invasion. Bush hasn't managed to kill him yet either. (they claim he isn't really important anymore, but I guarantee you they'd make a gigantic show of it if he was caught or killed)

Besides, Clinton found out the hard way (with his universal health care promise) that the Pres. doesn't actually run the country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We must have faith in whoever is leading the war that the reason was valid to go there. Who are all of us to second guess a national leader when we are not privy to the information he uses to base his decisions. I refrained from using GB's name because it could very well be a liberal democrat who digs this war down even more in the next few years.

Who are we to second guess that leader? Everyone who is a citizen of that country. Remember your president works for YOU not the other way around. The American population is the boss, not the President. So please don't blindly put your faith in the president. If you have faith in him, at least have some good solid reasons that you believe in.

Black Dog. Um that book ships in 1 to 3 months. I guess you have to have patience when trying to be positive. :blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear BHS,

Illegally occupying force" and a buck will get you a small coffee at Tim's,
Brilliantly argued. I'll go throw away my dictionaries. Seriously, without a formal declaration of war (which is legal), and a resolution authorizing invasion and deposition of the leader of a soveriegn nation, the US' actions were technically both illegal internationally and in the US.

Incidentally, they had no legal right to invade Afghanistan either, but they did have world sympathy. Most expected that it would be OK if they 'crossed the 't's and dotted the 'i's after the fact in the UN. However, they squandered that sympathy with hubris and short-sighted arrogance.

Oh, and say hi to Cheech and Chong for me.
Your 'half-witty' replies do little to address fact.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who are we to second guess that leader? Everyone who is a citizen of that country. Remember your president works for YOU not the other way around. The American population is the boss, not the President. So please don't blindly put your faith in the president. If you have faith in him, at least have some good solid reasons that you believe in.

Last time I checked, democracy was over when you cast your vote for the most part. Sort of like firing a gun, it's rare that you can take a bullet back after it's left the barrel.

Analogy is a stretch I know, but you get my meaning I hope.

Incidentally, they had no legal right to invade Afghanistan either, but they did have world sympathy. Most expected that it would be OK if they 'crossed the 't's and dotted the 'i's after the fact in the UN. However, they squandered that sympathy with hubris and short-sighted arrogance.

It's the new American way of waging 'liberation' campaigns. If you declare war, you must win and the other side must capitulate, at least to the public eyes. This way they can quit whenever they feel like it and leave.

I think the best way to win the Iraq war is to get a bunch of citizens of the western world to emigrate there, open some McDonalds restaurants and give them cholesteral, whisky, peeler bars and drag racing, etc. Get their minds off that suicide bomb crap. They'll go for it once they start having fun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The funny thing about people who predicted a quagmire before the occupation began was how right they were proven. In fact, on just about every front, the anti-war crowd has been right and the war hawks/chickenhawks dead wrong. It's just too bad it's the Iraqi people who are paying the biggest price for the neocons' hubris and "positive thinking".

It's all spin, dude. If you choose to focus on relatively small losses and temporary setbacks to justify your theory, good for you. I'm looking at the big picture, where the real story of the intervention is playing out. Rebuilding a nation takes time. Go ahead and point to circumstantial difficulties and bury your head in the sand. Your input isn't needed, and you won't be missed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,698
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    IPEM Group of Institutions
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Ethan Wylde earned a badge
      First Post
    • Yakuda went up a rank
      Experienced
    • QuebecOverCanada went up a rank
      Grand Master
    • Jeary went up a rank
      Rookie
    • Gator earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...